Fermi GBM transient searches with ADWO

Transcription

1 Contrib. Astron. Obs. Skalnaté Pleso 47, 76 83, (7) Fermi GBM transient searches with ADWO Z. Bagoly, D. Szécsi, L.G. Balázs,3, I. Csabai, L. Dobos, I. Horváth 4, J. Lichtenberger,5 and L.V. Tóth Eötvös University, Budapest, Hungary. ( Astronomical Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Ondřejov, Czech Republic 3 Konkoly Observatory, RCAES, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 4 National University of Public Service, Hungary 5 Geodetic and Geophysical Institute, RCAES, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Received: May 3, 7; Accepted: May 3, 7 Abstract. We present the method called Automatized Detector Weight Optimization (ADWO). This method searches for non-triggered, short-duration transients in the data-set of the Fermi s Gamma-ray Burst Monitor. The data of all available detectors and energy channels are combined. Therefore, ADWO is ideal to search for electromagnetic counterparts of gravitational wave events. We present the successful identification of all short-duration gamma-ray bursts, as well as that of the possible electromagnetic counterparts of gravitational wave transients GW594 and LVT5. Key words: gravitational waves gamma rays bursts: general. Introduction On September 4, 5 at 9:5:45.39 UTC the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) observed the first transient gravitational-wave (GW) signal GW594 (Abbott et al., 6e). The signal originates from the merger of a binary black hole (Abbott et al., 6a). Observations with the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope s Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) (Carson, 7; Meegan et al., 9), custom pipeline looking for prompt gamma-ray counterparts in GBM (Blackburn et al., 5; Kelley et al., 3), optimized for LIGO GW candidate events found a weak transient source(connaughton et al., 6).4 s after the GW event, with a false probability of.. Similar searches were unsuccessful with the Fermi LAT (Ackermann et al., 6), as well as during the partial Swift follow-up (Evans et al., 6). The IN- TEGRAL observation of the event was unsuccesful too (Savchenko et al., 6). Despite these unsuccesful detections, the GBM s signal is interesting enough to investigate the electromagnetic (EM) counterparts of GW detections, such as short-duration gamma-ray bursts (SGRBs). Perna et al. (6) proposed a

2 Fermi GBM transient searches with ADWO 77 model in which a double black hole merger produces a SGRB. In this model, two low-metalicity massive stars are orbiting around each other (de Mink et al., 9; Marchant et al., 6; Mandel & de Mink, 6) with synchronized rotations because of the tight orbit. Their rotational periods are very short (a few days), and these stars evolve homogeneously as the fast rotation prevents them to expand (Szécsi et al., 5). Assuming that one of the supernova explosions leaves a disk behind, a relativistic jet will be launched during the black holes merger Perna et al. (6). There are two more LIGO observations worth to explore. On //5 at 9:54: UTC LVT5 was observed as the second GW candidate transient (Abbott et al., 6c,b), with a false alarm probability of., considered to be not low enough to confidently claim this event as a real signal. On 6//5 at 3:38: UTC the third GW transient event, GW6 was observed, with a significance greater than 5 σ (Abbott et al., 6d).. The Automatized Detector Weight Optimization (ADWO) method The Fermi GBM includes Sodium Iodide (NaI(Tl)) and two Bismuth Germanate (BGO) scintillation detectors (Meegan et al., 9). The NaI(Tl) detectors measure the spectrum from 8 kev to MeV, while the BGO detectors are sensitive from kev to 4 MeV. To calculate the significance of an event, the spectral model should be multiplied by the detector response matrix (DRM) and binned to get the photon events. These counts will be compared to the counts and the background noise observed by the detectors. The DRM describes the effective detection area as the function of the incoming photon energy, angular dependence, detector non-linearity and scattering. Without directional information this method cannot be used as the DRM exhibits a strong angular dependence. Although the direction is unknown the time interval where the possible EM trigger could happen is given. To analyze the multi-detector multi-channel continuous data the simplest method would be to sum all the detectors and channels. Clearly this way is not optimal since non-illuminated detectors and noisy energy channels should be taken into account only with low weights. The Automatized Detector Weight Optimization (ADWO) method (Bagoly et al., 6) solves this problem by assigning different normalized and positive weights to different energy channels (e i ) and detectors (d j ). The signal is S(t) = i,j e id j C ij (t), where C ij (t) denotes the background subtracted lightcurve in the jth detector s ith energy channel. ADWO maximizes the Signal s Peak (maximum of S(t) within the search interval) over the Background s Peak (maximum of S(t) outside the search interval). The Signal s Peak over the Background s Peak (SPBPR) is one of the most important statistical parameters in our analysis. ADWO provides not only maximum value of SPBPR, but

3 78 Z. Bagoly et al. also the best weights and the exact time of the event. ADWO s Matlab/Octave source code is freely available. We use the Fermi GBM continuous time-tagged event (CTTE) data, grouped by the CTIME energy channels 4.4,, 7, 5,, 9, 54, 98 and kev (denoted with e... e 8, resp.), smoothed by a 64 ms moving average window. We use only the upper 6 energy channels, since we look for spectrally hard events and want to reduce the low energy noise. For the background determination one should take the detailed satellite positional information into account (e.g. Szécsi et al. (3)). However, here we are only looking for short transients or SGRBs, hence a 6th order polynomial background fit was subtracted in the (, 5) s region around the possible trigger, similarly to Connaughton et al. (6). 3. Transient search results We analyzed the short GRB55B gamma-ray burst. Full CTTE data of the ( 37, 476)s interval relative to the trigger was analyzed. ADWO obtained SPBPR=3. (Fig. ). We ve generated 4 Monte-Carlo (MC) simulations to determine the significance: there was no case with SPBPR above 3., therefore the false alarm rate is below 5 Hz, with a corresponding false alarm probability < Seconds since /5/5 :38:44.68 UTC Figure. ADWO light curve of GRB55B in the 7- kev range.

4 Fermi GBM transient searches with ADWO 79 We also applied the ADWO method on the Fermi CTTE data, around the GW594 event. The 6 s long signal window was analyzed in the ( 95, 495)s full interval (relative to the GW trigger). ADWO obtained SPBPR=.9, 474 ms after the GW event (Fig. ). The 4 MC simulations produced 86 cases with bigger SPBPR, thus the false alarm rate is.4 Hz, and the false alarm probability is seconds since 4/9/5 9:5:45.39 UTC Figure. ADWO light curve of GW594 in the 7- kev range. We analyzed the GBM CTTE data of LVT5, covering the ( 95, 495) s window around the trigger. ADWO produced a SPBPR=.85, 65 ms after the GW event (Fig. 3). 4 MC simulations were performed to determine the significance. 38 cases had bigger SPBPR than.85, giving the false alarm rate of.5 Hz and the false alarm probability of.37. Cross-check with the lightning detections made by WWLLN (Rodger et al., 9) produced no TGF candidates within 5 km of the spacecraft position. ADWO was applied for the GW56 event s GBM CTTE data, in the ( 95, 495) s window around the trigger. ADWO produced a relatively low peak with SPBPR=.3, 95 ms before the signal. This SPBPR value is so low that it cannot be considered as a real signal (Fig. 4). It is known that GBM observed several untriggered EM events, e.g. Gruber & Fermi/GBM Collaboration () estimates.6 untriggered SGRB/month in the Fermi observations. They even produce an untriggered GRB list on the Fermi webpage, as an output of the offline (ground based) processing pipeline (Siellez et al., 6; Briggs et al., 6). In Figs. 5-6 the results of the ADWO searches are shown for two such cases. Both of the ADWO light curves show a clear transient after the trigger.

5 8 Z. Bagoly et al seconds since //5 9:54: UTC Figure 3. ADWO light curve of LVT5 in the 7- kev range Seconds since 6//5 3:38: UTC Figure 4. ADWO light curve of GW56 in the 7- kev range. 4. Discussion We ve analyzed Fermi s all triggered GRBs with T 9 < s. On Fig. 7 sum of the 7 9 kev weights (softness) and the SPBPR values are shown with events having SPBPR below 6. Furthermore, we repeated the ADWO on 6.4 ks CTTE GBM observation on 5/9/ s long signal window slices were analyzed, and the corresponding sum of the 7 9 kev weights and

6 Fermi GBM transient searches with ADWO seconds since MET Figure 5. ADWO light curve of the untriggered GRB5953 in the 7- kev range seconds since MET Figure 6. ADWO light curve of the untriggered GRB63788 in the 7- kev range.

7 8 Z. Bagoly et al GRB5953 GRB55B softness (e 3 +e 4 +e 5 ) GW6 LVT5 GRB63788 GW Figure 7. and the sum of the 7 9 kev weights for the 6.4ks GBM data background (grey open squares) and for the T 9 s Fermi SGRBs (small crosses). All transients mentioned in the article are also shown. SPBPR values are also plotted on Fig. 7. It is interesting that all transient mentioned above are within the SGRBs distribution, and also one can see that several GBM background observations produce a strong SPBPR signal. Both effects will be investigated in a forthcoming paper. Acknowledgements. This work was supported by OTKA grants NN6 and NN456. The authors wish to thank the World Wide Lightning Location Network ( a collaboration among over 5 universities and institutions, for providing the lightning location data used in this paper. Thanks for the computational resources of the Wigner GPU Laboratory of the Wigner RCP of the H.A.S. D. Sz. was supported by the Czech grant 3-589S ČR. References Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 6a, Astrophys. J., Lett., 88, L

8 Fermi GBM transient searches with ADWO 83 Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 6b, Physical Review X, 6, 45 Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 6c, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 3 Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 6d, Physical Review Letters, 6, 43 Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 6e, Physical Review Letters, 6, 6 Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 6, Astrophys. J., Lett., 83, L Bagoly, Z., Szécsi, D., Balázs, L. G., et al. 6, A&A, 593, L Blackburn, L., Briggs, M. S., Camp, J., et al. 5, ApJS, 7, 8 Briggs, M. S., Hamburg, R., Veres, P., et al. 6, LPI Contributions, 96, 497 Carson, J. 7, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 6, 5 Connaughton, V., Burns, E., Goldstein, A., et al. 6, Astrophys. J., Lett., 86, L6 de Mink, S. E., Cantiello, M., Langer, N., et al. 9, A&A, 497, 43 Evans, P. A., Kennea, J. A., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 6, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [arxiv:6.3868] Gruber, D. & Fermi/GBM Collaboration., in Proc. of the Gamma-Ray Bursts Conference (GRB ). May 7-,. Munich, Germany., 36 Kelley, L. Z., Mandel, I., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 3, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 34 Mandel, I. & de Mink, S. E. 6, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 458, 634 Marchant, P., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., Tauris, T. M., & Moriya, T. J. 6, A&A, 588, A5 Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 9, Astrophys. J., 7, 79 Perna, R., Lazzati, D., & Giacomazzo, B. 6, Astrophys. J., Lett., 8, L8 Rodger, C., Brundell, J., Holzworth, R., & Lay, E. 9, in Am. Inst. Phys. Conf. Proc., Coupling of thunderstorms and lightning discharges to near- Earth space: Proceedings of the Workshop, Corte (France), 3-7 June 8, Vol. 8, 5 Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., Mereghetti, S., et al. 6, Astrophys. J., Lett., 8, L36 Siellez, K., Carullo, G., Forsyth, S., et al. 6, LPI Contributions, 96, 43 Szécsi, D., Bagoly, Z., Kóbori, J., Horváth, I., & Balázs, L. G. 3, A&A, 557, A8 Szécsi, D., Langer, N., Yoon, S.-C., et al. 5, A&A, 58, A5